DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onuma et al (WO 2021085255 A1) in view of Kudo (US 20190123358 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Onuma teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery (Paragraph (19)), comprising a positive electrode 11, a negative electrode 12, an electrolyte, and a separator 13 that separates the positive electrode 11 and the negative electrode 12 from each other (Paragraph (30)). The negative electrode 12 has a negative electrode current collector 12A and negative electrode active material layers 12B on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector 12A (Paragraph (39)). The negative electrode active material layer 12B, may have a discharge capacity between 400 mAh/g and 750 mAh/g, as seen in Experiment examples 7 – 24 (Table 1 and Table 2). The negative electrode active material layer 12B further includes a conductive agent comprising single-walled carbon nanotubes (Paragraph (49)). The negative electrode active material includes a silicon-based material (Paragraph (41)) and may contain a carbon-based material (Paragraph (44)).
Onuma does not teach a negative electrode current collector with a thickness between 4 µm and 12 µm and is silent on the 1%-proof strength of the negative electrode current collector.
PNG
media_image1.png
386
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Kudo teaches a rolled copper foil for a negative electrode current collector with a 0.2% yield strength of 480 MPa in the direction parallel to the rolling direction and a 0.2% yield strength of 510 MPa in the direction orthogonal to the rolling direction (Paragraphs [0044-0048]), both of which fall within the range of 300 MPa to 700 MPa. Referring to [Fig. 1], the 1% proof strength direction will shift this value to the right slightly, but as the maximum stress value of the plot is less than 700 MPa, the 1% proof strength will fall within the above-mentioned range. "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (see MPEP 2131.03(I)).
Kudo further teaches the rolled copper foil has a thickness in the range of 5-20 µm (Paragraph [0052]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). Kudo does not disclose a preferred thickness of the rolled copper foil, but 19 out of the 20 examples used a thickness between 4 µm and 12 µm (product plate thickness, Table 2-1) and Kudo also discusses an improved energy density per unit weight and reduced cost as benefits to using a decreased thickness of the copper foil, therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the copper foil disclosed by Kudo nearer to the lower end of the taught range for the purpose of reducing cost and improving energy density.
Regarding Claim 2,
In view of Kudo, Onuma teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, but Onuma does not teach the measurements required by the equation of the instant claim: CA/(CM x CT) < 0.3.
However, by replacing the negative electrode current collector 12A of Onuma with the current collector taught by Kudo the modified battery comprises the following measurements. A discharge capacity (CA) of 556 mAh/g (Example 13, Table 2; Onuma), a negative electrode current collector thickness (CT) of 8 µm (most common example thickness, Table 2-1; Kudo), and a 0.2% yield strength (CM) of 510 (taken as a rough estimate of the average across all examples, Table 2-2; Kudo). Plugging these values into the formula in the instant claim CA/(CM x CT) becomes 556 mAh/g/(510 MPa x 8 µm), resulting in a value of 0.136, which is less than 0.3. As mentioned above, Kudo discusses an improved energy density per unit weight and reduced cost as benefits to using a decreased thickness of the copper foil, therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the current collector taught by Onuma by replacing it with the copper foil disclosed by Kudo.
Regarding Claim 3,
In view of Kudo, Onuma teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1 and further teaches the carbon-based material may be made from graphite, including natural graphite or artificial graphite (Paragraph (45)).
Regarding Claims 4-7,
In view of Kudo, Onuma teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1. Onuma further teaches a silicon-based material comprising an ion-conductive phase, in which silicon particles are dispersed, and coated with a carbon-containing material or a negative electrode conductor (Paragraphs (41-46, 183-186)). The ion-conductive phase of the silicon-based material may comprise a combination of silicon compounds and alloys to include silicides of Group II elements (Mg2Si) and of metals, for example TiSi2 (Paragraph (42)).
Regarding Claim 8,
In view of Kudo, Onuma teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1. Onuma teaches multiple examples of the negative electrode 12 wherein the silicon-based material is present between 5 mass% and 30 mass% relative to the total amount of the carbon-based material and the silicon-based material (Examples 7-24, Tables 1-2). "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (see MPEP 2131.03(I)).
Regarding Claim 10,
In view of Kudo, Onuma teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, but Onuma does not teach a breakage elongation between 2-9% of the negative electrode current collector 12.
However, Examples 1-15 and Comparative Examples 1-5 of Kudo, have a breaking elongation in the rolling parallel direction of 2.0-3.0% and in the rolling orthogonal direction of 2.3-4.5%. "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (see MPEP 2131.03(I)). For the reasons mentioned in response to Claim 1, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the current collector taught by Onuma by replacing it with the copper foil disclosed by Kudo.
Regarding Claim 11,
In view of Kudo, Onuma teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1. As seen in Example 13 (Table 2) of Onuma, the carbon nanotubes had an average diameter of 2 nm, falling between the range of the instant claim, 0.01-5 nm. "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (see MPEP 2131.03(I)).
Regarding Claim 12,
In view of Kudo, Onuma teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1. As seen in Example 13 (Table 2) of Onuma, the carbon nanotubes make up 0.01 mass% of the negative electrode active material. This falls between the range of 0.005-0.6 mass% presented in the instant claim. "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (see MPEP 2131.03(I)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onuma in view of Kudo as applied to claims 1-8 and 10-12 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 20190249322 A1).
Regarding Claim 9,
In view of Kudo, Onuma teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1 as well as a copper current collector, but is silent on the crystal grain size of the copper.
However, Lee teaches examples of copper foils with a cross-sectional grain size within the range of 0.2 µm – 2 µm (Table 2) and a method of producing the copper foils (Paragraphs [0051-0055]). As any of Examples 1-8 possess an average grain size within the range of the instant claim, "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (see MPEP 2131.03(I)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the current collector taught by Onuma in view of Kudo with the method of Lee to produce a copper current collector with grain size between 0.2 µm – 2 µm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M KNOWLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN M KNOWLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights